33 victim in a state of complete defenselessness, giving rise to other related crimes; these are particularly serious when they form part of a systematic pattern or practice applied or tolerated by the State. 172 95. The characterization of forced disappearance as an act that includes multiple offenses, in terms of the rights affected, and as a continuing or permanent crime, has been constantly reaffirmed in the Court’s case law since the first case it decided in 1988,173 which even preceded the definition contained in the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons.174 This characterization is consistent with other definitions contained in different international instruments175 that indicate the following as concurrent elements constituting forced disappearance: a) deprivation of liberty; b) direct involvement of State agents or their acquiescence, and c) refusal to acknowledge the detention and to reveal the fate or whereabouts of the individual in question.176 96. Based on the considerations outlined in Chapter IV regarding the State’s acknowledgement of responsibility, and on the facts established (supra paras. 52 to 87), in the precedent of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador and under the terms of the State’s acknowledgment of international responsibility, the Court decides that the forced disappearances of the child victims in this case constituted a multiple and continuing violation of their rights to personal liberty, humane treatment, life and recognition of juridical personality, in relation to the obligations to respect and guarantee rights. Therefore, the Court declares the State of El Salvador responsible for the forced disappearances of José Adrián Rochac Hernández, Santos Ernesto Salinas, Emelinda Lorena Hernández, Manuel Antonio Bonilla and Ricardo Abarca Ayala, and for the consequent violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 7, 5, 4(1) and 3 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. 97. The Inter-American Court emphasizes the serious nature of the facts sub judice, which occurred between 1980 and 1982, during the bloodiest phase of El Salvador’s armed conflict (supra paras. 47 and 48). Indeed, the disappearances of José Adrián Rochac Hernández, Santos Ernesto Salinas, Emelinda Lorena Hernández, Manuel Antonio Bonilla and Ricardo Abarca Ayala were not isolated incidents, but formed part of a systematic pattern of forced disappearances of children by the State that was established during the armed conflict in El Salvador (supra paras. 49 and 50). Indeed, the State has acknowledged this fact (supra para. 19). B. The rights of children, and of their next of kin, to the protection of the family, to private and family life, and to identity (Articles 11(2) and 17 in relation to Articles 19 and 1(1) of the American Convention) Cf. Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay, supra, para. 82, and Case of García and Family v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 29, 2012. Series C No. 258, para. 96. 172 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 155, and Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador, supra, para. 82. 173 The Convention establishes that “forced disappearance is considered to be the act of depriving a person or persons of his or their freedom, in whatever way, perpetrated by agents of the State or by persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization, support, or acquiescence of the State, followed by an absence of information or a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the whereabouts of that person, thereby impeding his or her recourse to the applicable legal remedies and procedural guarantees.” Article II of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, adopted in Belém do Pará, Brazil, on June 9, 1994, at the Twenty-fourth Regular Session of the General Assembly. 174 Cf. Article 2 of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, U.N. Doc. A/RES/61/177, of December 20, 2006; Article 7, paragraph 2 (i) of the Statute of Rome of the International Criminal Court, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.183/9, of July 17, 1998, and Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, General Observation Article 4 of the Statement on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, of January 15, 1996. Report to the Human Rights Commission. U.N. Doc. E/CN. 4/1996/38, para. 55. 175 Cf. Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136, para. 97; Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, para. 140, and Case of Osorio Rivera and Family v. Peru, supra, para. 113. 176